http://www.politicalgateway.com/cand.php?id=1496&isid=2078&page=issue A Republic , not a Democracy Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: and to the Republic for which it stands ...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added).  The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so? Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the excesses of democracy.

http://www.positiveliberty.com/2009/01/democracy-v-republic.html Positive Liberty: Democracy V. Republic By Jonathan Rowe on Jan 19th 2009 We often hear certain figures (mostly from the extreme political right) claim America was founded to be a republic not a democracy. That statement is a half truth. Some of the folks who utter it understand what they are talking about; many don't. And unfortunately, I see David Barton as one of the chief perpetrators of the ignorant understanding of the phrase. The United States was founded to be a small l liberal small d democracy. All small d democracy means is voting (i.e., consent of the governed). And small l liberal means certain rights are antecedent to majority rule. The Declaration of Independence is the quintessential liberal democratic document. The US Constitution established the United States as a constitutional republic. And a constitutional republic is simply a form of liberal democracy. You do see quotations from the Founding Fathers criticizing the concept of democracy in favor of republicanism ; but what they are really criticizing is direct democracy or mob rule. There are certain republican checks that must be built in to the democratic rule of the people. Chiefly, it's representatives not the people who make the laws. Another republican check is that certain individual rights are prior to majority rule. Ultimately, all of the following terms correctly describe the American system of government: liberal democracy, representative democracy, representative republic or democratic republic. The following term does NOT: direct democracy. And that's what the Founders criticized when they noted our form of government was a republic not a democracy. Now, on to David Barton's distortions of this dynamic. This should help explain why so many Christian Nationalists repeat we are a republic, not a democracy as a mindless mantra: If you study the history of republicanism , you see it was invented by Western Culture's noble pagan Greco-Roman heritage. The Greeks tried direct democracy, saw that it didn't work. And the Romans pioneered   republicanism. Indeed, the Founding Fathers looked back at noble pagan republican Rome with a great affinity. Indeed, when they wrote with surnames they picked ones from republican Rome, not the Bible. The Founders thought of themselves as new versions of Cato, Cincinnatus, Brutus, Novanglus, and of course Publius. Yet, what they were arguing for wasn't exactly what ancient Rome had, but rather something more modern. 18th Century republicanism was more of an Enlightenment construct. The Bible spoke little to ideals of 18th Century republicanism. The authors of the Federalist Papers never quoted the Bible in support of the provisions in the US Constitution. But outside of the Federalist Papers, some Enlightenment thinkers and ministers did read in republicanism to the Biblical record. As rationalists, America's Founders and the ministers who worked with them picked and chose from all sources of world history, including the biblical record, what they thought rational and ignored or discarded the rest. And along the way they did a lot of reading in to those sources what they wanted to see to fit their Whig ideology. When framing the Constitution, Noah Webster perfectly captured this Enlightenment zeitgeist that undergirded the US Constitution: Of all the memorable eras that have marked the progress of men from the savage state to the refinements of luxury, that which has combined them into society, under a wise system of government, and given form to a nation, has ever been recorded and celebrated as the most important. Legislators have ever been deemed the greatest benefactors of mankind-respected when living, and often deified after their death. Hence the fame of Fohi and Confucius-of Moses, Solon and Lycurgus-of Romulus and Numa-of Alfred, Peter the Great, and Mango Capac; whose names will be celebrated through all ages, for framing and improving constitutions of government, which introduced order into society and secured the benefits of law to millions of the human race. This western world now beholds an era important beyond conception, and which posterity will number with the age of Czar of Muscovy, and with the promulgation of the Jewish laws at Mount Sinai. The names of those men who have digested a system of constitutions for the American empire, will be enrolled with those of Zamolxis and Odin, and celebrated by posterity with the honors which less enlightened nations have paid to the fabled demi-gods of antiquity. But the origin of the AMERICAN REPUBLIC is distinguished by peculiar circumstances. Other nations have been driven together by fear and necessity-the governments have generally been the result of a single man's observations; or the offspring of particular interests. IN the formation of our constitution, the wisdom of all ages is collected-the legislators of antiquity are consulted-as well as the opinions and interests of the millions who are concerned. In short, in it an empire of reason. Now, Webster wrote these words in 1787; later when the French revolted and tried to construct their empire on reason, it didn't work so well and Webster, apparently, rethought his confidence in reason as the rock that undergirds the American republic. In the 19th Century Webster began talking like a Christian Nationalist, and consequently, offers Barton et al. many quotations. Here is the offending article from Wallbuilders. The quotations criticizing democracy from the other Founders are apt; but, as we have seen, what they criticize is direct democracy. But what Barton quotes from Webster for how a republic defines is an extremely self-serving and distortionist definition. Here is what he reproduces from Webster: [O]ur citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.13 The other quotations are from Founders explaining how they believed law ultimately traced to the divine. The Founders did believe in an immutable God given natural law discovered by reason. But they disagreed on the proper relationship between reason and revelation. The most notable republicans like Jefferson, J. Adams, Franklin and Madison were rationalists who believed man's reason the ultimate device for discovering that higher law, in both private and public life. But I'm sure many other FFs disagreed. Because they disagreed on the Bible's proper role in politics (how to properly understand the Bible led to sectarian arguments which they were trying to avoid), they formed a consensus that, in politics, we would look to reason to determine God given natural law. Now, that there is an immutable higher law that trumps majority rule (indeed it's the source of unalienable rights ) was one republican check on democratic rule. However, it's arguably not the sine qua non of republicanism. If anything the central feature of republicanism v. direct democracy is representatives make the law, not the people. But to David Barton and those who follow him, the difference between republicanism and democracy is democracy is majority rule, republicanism is God's law. And of course God's law simply reduces to the Bible to be used as a proof-texting trump as today's evangelicals currently do. So when Ben Franklin said America was given A Republic, if you can keep it, he apparently meant, according to Barton, that we must act like evangelical proof texters believing the Bible the infallible Word of God. And, by the way, Ben Franklin believed that the[re are] several Things in the old Testament impossible to be given by divine Inspiration,. Barton's theory ignores the fact that the Founders turned chiefly to   reason and avoided proof texting the Bible to determine the content of the God given natural law. As John Adams put it: To him who believes in the Existence and Attributes physical and moral of a God, there can be no obscurity or perplexity in defining the Law of Nature to be his wise benign and all powerful Will, discovered by Reason. - John Adams to Thomas Boylston Adams, March 19, 1794. Adams Papers (microfilm), reel 377, Library of Congress. Seen in James H. Hutson's, The Founders on Religion, p. 132.

The Preamble We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_preamble.html promote the general Welfare , gee wonder what welfare means? The Preamble is a general statement of intent (read: window dressing ). The actual operative words are what follow. The Constitution lists the enumerated powers of the federal government. If it's not in the list, the government can't do it. The most relevant enumerated power here is Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce. This Commerce Clause has been interpreted to allow the federal government wide latitude in things affecting economics. But perhaps mandating everyone to get private health insurance is a bridge too far? Further, in the 18th century, the phrase general welfare did not mean what we generally think of today. It meant something similar to the British colonial usage of peace, order, and good government (often abbreviated POGG, as our Canadian friends know). This is like the bare minimum that a well-run country can expect.

http://www.americantraditions.org/Articles/why_our_founders_feared_a_... Why Our Founders Feared a Democracy By O. R. Adams Jr. Our Founders very much feared creating a government that had too many aspects of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in trying to make everyone equal, and in the process taking away property, rights of property, and with it our basic freedoms which they considered God given Freedoms. They very much feared the development of the Robin Hood mentality we are seeing today - soak the rich and give to the poor. It is a democratic drift toward socialism. Such a program as the proposed Universal Healthcare is a prime example. The fear had good basis. Our Founders were all knowledgeable people, and all knew and discussed how all prior democracies ended in disastrous failures - one of the most well known being that of Athens, Greece. As stated by Paul Gagnon: American history reaches way back-to the texts of Judaism and Christianity, to the glory and failure of democracy in Athens, to Rome, Feudal times, and more. To explain our values, history classes need to reach back, too. http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/issues/summer2005/ There has been a historical writing floating around for a number of years on principles that were well known to our founders, which is: A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage. (Emphasis added) http://www.democrats.com/node/807 The above, in the reference shown, is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish born British lawyer and writer (1747-1813). However, there is some doubt about the original author, although the quotation has been often repeated by knowledgeable people. (See: http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html) Certainly, the principle was well known to our Founders, and to informed writers of that period. One of the greatest of all writers about our American government, and the dangers it faced, was the French writer and historian, Alexis de Tocqueville. He toured all of America in the early 1800s, and after some years wrote the great two volume book, Democracy in America. The University of Virginia has done the great service to America of making this complete two volume works available online at http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/toc_indx.html A good part of Volume II of Democracy in America was on the dangers of a democracy, which was along the same line as the above quoted information. He very much hoped that our Republic form of government could escape those dangers. Some excerpts from the book, in that regard, are: It frequently happens that the members of the community promote the influence of the central power without intending to. Democratic eras are periods of experiment, innovation, and adventure. There is always a multitude of men engaged in difficult or novel undertakings, which they follow by themselves without shackling themselves to their fellows. Such persons will admit, as a general principle, that the public authority ought not to interfere in private concerns; but, by an exception to that rule, each of them craves its assistance in the particular concern on which he is engaged and seeks to draw upon the influence of the government for his own benefit, although he would restrict it on all other occasions. If a large number of men applies this particular exception to a great variety of different purposes, the sphere of the central power extends itself imperceptibly in all directions, although everyone wishes it to be circumscribed. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter III, That the Sentiments of Democratic Nations Accord with Their Opinions in Leading Them to Concentrate Political Power [in] America) ... These powers accumulate there with astonishing rapidity, and the state instantly attains the utmost limits of its strength, while private persons allow themselves to sink as suddenly to the lowest degree of weakness. ... Hence the concentration of power and the subjection of individuals will increase among democratic nations, not only in the same proportion as their equality, but in the same proportion as their ignorance. ... (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter IV, Of Certain Peculiar and Accidental Causes Which Either Lead a People to Complete the Centralization of Government or Divert Them From It) Above this race of men stands an immense and tutelary power, which takes upon itself alone to secure their gratifications and to watch over their fate. That power is absolute, minute, regular, provident, and mild. It would be like the authority of a parent if, like that authority, its _object_ was to prepare men for manhood; but it seeks, on the contrary, to keep them in perpetual childhood: it is well content that the people should rejoice, provided they think of nothing but rejoicing. For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living? Thus it every day renders the exercise of the free agency of man less useful and less frequent; it circumscribes the will within a narrower range and gradually robs a man of all the uses of himself. The principle of equality has prepared men for these things; it has predisposed men to endure them and often to look on them as benefits. After having thus successively taken each member of the community in its powerful grasp and fashioned him at will, the supreme power then extends its arm over the whole community. It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, and guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting. Such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd. (Volume 2, Section 4: Chapter VI, What Sort of Despotism Democratic Nations Have to Fear.) These things we are seeing in America, today; and worse is proposed. As we get our government benefits, we resist less while it takes away our rights and controls our lives. Even our local governments are getting into the act. They even tell us how to flush our toilets. How long will it be before they regulate how we wipe our behinds? Well knowing the reasons for the demise of past democracies, our Founders, by our Constitution, created a Republic in an effort to avoid those pitfalls. In an article, Are We a Republic or a Democracy, Professor Walter E. Williams of George Mason University, explains how our Founders strove to create a Republic instead of a Democracy, and why. The following are some excerpts: James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy. John Adams said, Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. Chief Justice John Marshall observed, Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos. In the article, Professor Williams also reflects on the sad situation we have in America today, in that it appears that today Americans seem to want the same kind of tyranny that our Founders tried to guard against. http://reliableanswers.com/patriot/2005/01/are-we-republic-or-democra... When our Constitution was adopted the people of our country, against tremendous odds, had just fought and won the revolutionary war against Britain, and had a real sense of freedom and individual responsibility. They also feared the centralized government that a democracy could bring about, and by which their individual freedoms, which they had just gained by blood and sacrifice, could be lost. In Federalist Paper #10, James Madison gave a comprehensive dissertation on how a Republic would guard against such losses of freedom, in an effort to get our proposed Constitution ratified by the people and their states. The following are excerpts from Madison's paper: ... When a majority is included in the faction, the form of popular government ... enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. ... ... Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention;
... read more ť

***Look, Steve, don't put to paper what you know nothing about. You make yourself a laughingstock. It makes you look like a real jerk. ***The United States is a Republic with democratically elected representatives. It is NOT a democracy. If you don't get it try Google. Geesh! One can equally say that it's a democracy expressed through republican institutions. The Republic is the structural form; the Democracy is the political ideal. Besides that, it's not static. The entire trajectory of American history shows a path to more and more democracy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospi... From the British Daily Mail The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets By Jenny Hope and Nick Mcdermott Last updated at 8:36 AM on 26th August 2009 Thousands of women are having to give birth outside maternity wards because of a lack of midwives and hospital beds. The lives of mothers and babies are being put at risk as births in locations ranging from lifts to toilets - even a caravan - went up 15 per cent last year to almost 4,000. Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full. Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least: